HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail - Read Before Packet - 9/17/2019 - Email From Fort Collins Partners In Climate Action - Picas Recommendation For The Northfield Metro District1
Sarah Kane
From: John Duval
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:42 PM
To: John Duval
Subject: FW: PiCA's Recommendations for the Northfield Metro District, 9/17
From: Fort Collins Partners in Climate Action <focopica@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 10:56 PM
To: Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers
<ksummers@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky
<sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>
Cc: Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Jeff Mihelich <jmihelich@fcgov.com>; Josh Birks <JBirks@fcgov.com>;
Susan McFaddin <sue@7genllc.com>
Subject: PiCA's Recommendations for the Northfield Metro District, 9/17
Dear Fort Collins City Council Members:
Below and attached as a PDF is the response from the PiCA Building Codes and Energy Efficiency Working Group to the
latest proposal for the Northfield metro district.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Regards,
Nick Francis
PiCA Convenor
focopica.org
970.426.6359
PiCA’s Building Codes and Energy Efficiency Working Group’s
Recommendations for the Northfield metro district proposal,
September 17, 2019
The PiCA Building Codes and Energy Efficiency Working Group has examined the latest proposal from the
developer Landmark for the Northfield metro district. Our recommendations and concerns are recorded below.
Also included is a chart comparing PiCA’s original recommendations, the energy efficiency and affordable
housing proposals of the last three Landmark proposals, and PiCA’s recommendations for the last Landmark
proposal.
We find it unfortunate that City staff has put the developer in this position. PiCA submitted its proposal to the
City in mid-June this year. Much of this could have been resolved earlier to the Council’s and developer’s
satisfaction. We hope this process will improve for all involved in the future.
Summary of Recommendations:
1.
2. Energy efficiency standards and solar installations should
3. be the same for all units - do not exclude the affordable units;
2
4.
5.
6. HERS scores should be calculated before the addition
7. of solar, not after, and no unit should have a HERS score higher than 50;
8.
9.
10. Duct leakage for all units should not exceed 4%;
11.
12.
13. Affordable units should be for-sale, not for-rent. If
14. for-rent, the units should be priced as attainable for families making 60% of AMI and below;
15.
16.
17. The developer should try to incorporate 10% of the affordable
18. units as “dispersed” units, mixed-in with all other housing types;
19.
20.
21. The ZERH standard is easier to meet and to have certified.
22. We recommend it over LEED Gold. LEED Gold is an acceptable alternative. Developer should
certify that LEED Gold will meet or surpass the indoor air quality standards of Indoor AirPlus,
and the water efficiency standard of the appliance
23. and
24. hot water distribution standard of the WaterSense program.
25.
Additional Concerns:
1.
2. The inclusion of a clubhouse and pool - at a $2,000,000
3. value - does not meet the spirit or definition of “public benefit”;
4.
5.
6. “Reduction in Allowed Density / More Open Space” was
7. permitted to be included in the Public Benefits plan, at a value of $4,474,100. Inclusion of this
item contradicts Council’s direction, as stated in the August 21, 2018 memo to Council
(attached). That memo describes increased density as a specific, Council-desired
8. public benefit (page 5):
9.
Smart Growth Management: Development of public improvements that
deliver or facilitate the delivery of specific design components that: (i)
increase the density of development within the District; (ii) establish, enhance
or address the walkability and pedestrian friendliness of the District; (iii)
increase the availability of transit and/or multimodal oriented facilities; (iv)
create compelling public spaces; and/or (v) encourage mixed-use
development patterns
Northfield Metro District’s Proposals & PiCA’s Recommendations:
3
PiCA Metro District
Policy Recommendation
Northfield’s
Original Proposal,
8/20
Northfield’s
2nd Proposal,
9/3
Northfield’s 3rd
Proposal, 9/17
PiCA’s Recommendation,
9/17
ZERH standard for all units
with Indoor AirPlus
standard and the
WaterSense appliance
standard and the
WaterSense hot water
distribution standard.
Meeting the ZERH
standard requires third-
party verification and
commissioning.
-0-
ZERH standard
for all units
Not ZERH
standard, but
LEED Gold for all
market rate units.
LEED Gold is
comparable to the
ZERH standard
but is more
difficult to get
certified. Note that
these energy
efficiency
standards will not
apply to the
affordable units.
The LEED Gold standard is
an acceptable alternative, but
our recommendation is to
stick with the ZERH standard
for easier verification and
commissioning services.
Energy efficiency standards
should apply to all units,
including affordable units
HERS score maximum of
50 per unit, before solar
HERS score of 49-55 (same as
original
proposal)
HERS score of
35-49 for all
homes in the
attainable price
4
box. Most of the garages in
the Northfield metro district
design are multi-car
garages.
the public without
indicating how many
or what level of
charger they will be.
number of charging stations
and ports; 4) the number of
charging stations, the
charging level, and the
number of ports offered to the
public.
20% of all units should be
affordable, defined as: 5%
for families making 60% of
AMI and below; 10% for-
sale for families making
80% of AMI and below; 5%
for-sale for families making
between 80-120% AMI.
(AMI=Area Median
Income)
15% of units will be
affordable, for-sale,
for families making
80% AMI and below.
These will be “value
condos.”
The affordable units
in this proposal will
all be the same type.
The proposal
includes flats,
townhomes and
“Brownstones.” The
affordable units will
not be “dispersed”
throughout the
project; only one
affordable housing
type will be offered.
All of the remaining
units in this project
are attached
townhomes that will
be for-sale units,
affordable for families
making 80-120% of
AMI, which is
considered
“workforce housing.”
(same as
original
proposal)
15% of units will
be affordable.
However, they
may be for-rent or
for-sale - that has
not been
determined yet.
The Developer should strive
for a percentage of the
affordable units to be
"dispersed." We recommend
10% of the affordable units be
"dispersed." The rest should
be for-sale units and not for-
rent.
If the developer chooses to
make the affordable units for-
rent, they should refer to the
EPS analysis of the Mulberry
project and explain to Council
why for-rent apartments for
families making between 60-
80% AMI are a public benefit
when the market rate for
apartments in Fort Collins is
attainable for families making
just a little over 60% of AMI
today.
point (not the
affordable units)
The developer should clarify if
their proposed HERS scores
is before the addition of solar
or after. A HERS score of 50
should be achieved before the
addition of solar.
Energy efficiency standards
should apply to all units,
including affordable units
3 kW of solar per unit. Solar on 12 buildings
only
“will increase
solar” (no
commitment to
how much)
1 kW of solar for
each unit, but only
on the market rate
units (affordable
units are
excluded)
Solar should be provided to
all units, including affordable
units.
We understand there may be
limitations on rooftop space or
solar orientation. If that is
true, the developer should
present reasons why only 1
kW of solar per unit is offered.
A balanced energy
recovery ventilation (ERV)
system for each unit
-0-
An ERV for
each unit
(this was
communicated
informally - not
through an
official
Landmark
proposal)
An ERV in each
market rate unit
(affordable units
are excluded)
ERVs should be offered in all
units, including affordable
units. The cost of the ERVs
per unit seems to be
inflated. Market prices are ½
to ⅓ the stated price.
Duct leakage maximum of
4%
-0- Duct leakage
maximum of 4%
(Same as
previous
proposal)
We assume this standard
remains and will be applied to
all units, including the
affordable units.
The PiCA plan has no
requirement or
recommendation for EV
charging. Fort Collins city
code requires a 240V stub-
out for each garage for EV
charging - running an
empty conduit from the
garage to the electrical
EV chargers in each
garage. (They do not
specify the number of
chargers or the
number of ports.
They state that
“several” chargers
elsewhere on-site will
be made available to
(Same as
original
proposal - no
further
clarification)
(Same as
previous proposal
- no further
clarification)
Developer should clarify:
1) the number of charging
stations overall; 2) the
number of ports overall; 3)
how many charging stations
and ports will be in the multi-
car garages, with a ratio given
of the number of parking
spaces in each garage to the